I may harbor some consternation over a lack of progress in certain areas, but my purpose is to continue to do whatever I can to see this game progress for the scenarios that I love. Which there has been little if any progress on so far. I may label some of you as 'apologists' but that's because you are the focus of my consternation.

I may harbor some consternation over a lack of progress in certain areas, but my purpose is to continue to do whatever I can to see this game progress for the scenarios that I love. Which there has been little if any progress on so far. I may label some of you as 'apologists' but that's because you are the focus of my consternation. My fear is that Ralph is taking the easy way out, allowing you all to defend his action, regardless of how little he's taken on the areas of the game where it needs it the most.

I'm not actually in a position to know -- but my gut feeling is that this is unfair to Ralph.

First off, he has gone out of his way to accomodate my wishes on at least one occasion, and secondly, if computer programming is like anything from fixing cars to raising good strawberries, there's more work involved than one might think.

So be nice to Ralph. I'd guess we're getting our money's worth.

As to being an 'apologist,' one can pick that term if one chooses. At the end of the day, it takes time to make changes, and I will freely admit that I want to see the time devoted to making the changes I want made rather than those someone else might want made.

Given that Ralph is going to program for ten hours, I'd just as soon those hours went into implementing the change I favor rather than the one you favor. No offense.

I certainly don't want frigging submarines. For the reasons I have discussed elsewhere, I think those are silly. Now, if they could be had for free, well I'd say let you have them for free.

The thing is they can't, and the hours that go into implementing them could have gone elsewhere. You are, of course, at liberty to argue the reverse. But at the end of the day, Ralph will only put in so many hours.

It would not be fair to Ralph, except that I expressed it as 'a fear' and did not level it as a full-blown accusation. Regardless, I omitted it.

quote:

Given that Ralph is going to program for ten hours, I'd just as soon those hours went into implementing the change I favor rather than the one you favor. No offense.

And I loathe the thought that we would make this a debate, though unless remaining quiet and hopeful starts to show signs of success, I think I have to remain vocal, There are indeed plenty of people who want what I want, who are indeed remaining quiet and hopeful. It appears as though those who are most vocal are somewhat guiding this game's development. I've been quiet for quite awhile now.

I said what I wanted with regards to subs, and then spent the next ten posts re-explaining it. The addition of 'ASW' as a weapon value and target type. That is all I want.

quote:

ASW as a weapon value that works against subs, and subs as a target type.

Naval interdiction as an air mission choice.

Locking zocs.

Stack movement.

Variable movement allowances.

A spotting round based on air presence, weather, and the number of adjacent units.

The ability for ships to be either advantaged, neutral, or disadvantaged based on the air superiority and/or # of movement points left of participating units.

I think an important aspect of these mobile supply points is that they are multiple hit units that use supply based on the # of units drawing supply. Designers can make them as big or as small as they want. They would be vulnerable to attack while on the sea or by air where they deploy. Continual supply would best be represented by having two units per beachead; one that is deployed while the other is returned to another supply source, where it can recover. This would be perhaps the most realistic representation of supply I've ever seen. Usable for every scenario from Africa in WW2, to Vietnam, to the Falklands.

I think an important aspect of these mobile supply points is that they are multiple hit units that use supply based on the # of units drawing supply. Designers can make them as big or as small as they want. They would be vulnerable to attack while on the sea or by air where they deploy. Continual supply would best be represented by having two units per beachead; one that is deployed while the other is returned to another supply source, where it can recover. This would be perhaps the most realistic representation of supply I've ever seen. Usable for every scenario from Africa in WW2, to Vietnam, to the Falklands.

This leads back to how we are planning to revise naval warfare. At the moment, any such unit would never suffer any hits at all while it was 'at sea' -- since it would embark, sail right across most maps, and debark all in the same turn. Nor am I aware of any existing mechanism by which units could 'draw' on it and deplete it while it was ashore.

As I've said before, the whole naval/air thing is a package, and it really needs to be overhauled as such. Only then the interaction between that and the supply system (also to be overhauled) be usefully discussed.

Your idea is one way we could go -- but really. We first need to work out what the systems it is going to exist in would be. It couldn't usefully exist in the current system.

It's all a bit like discussing what car you should get. How much money you have, how many kids you have, what you like to do, where you live -- all these are up in the air. But we're going to decide what car you should get. Right answer at this point could equally well be a Mazda Miata or a Mercedes-Benz four wheel drive truck. We just don't know.

Perhaps yes, one implementation requires others. What's your point? Naval air interdiction as I proposed will slow units down considerably. Subs and raiders can block sea lanes to some degree, though in my rules, a path must exist. Will everything I've proposed be chronologically accurate? No. Not to the hour, day, or maybe week. But to the month and more importantly to the mission, yes. And the results will be accurate. Ralph does not have to insure this. He merely has to provide the tools for the SD to create his own units.

Perhaps yes, one implementation requires others. What's your point? Naval air interdiction as I proposed will slow units down considerably. Subs and raiders can block sea lanes to some degree, though in my rules, a path must exist. Will everything I've proposed be chronologically accurate? No. Not to the hour, day, or maybe week. But to the month and more importantly to the mission, yes. And the results will be accurate. Ralph does not have to ensure this. He merely has to provide the tools for the SD to create his own units.

I am playing the devil's advocate here. But we do need a general game plan. If we just keep modifying the system (and almost everything you propose requires more extensive modifications than you mention) to permit specific additions, we'll wind up with a mess.

It all fits together. We don't want to wind up with something that looks like something drawn by Rube Goldberg. The way I see it, the first questions are what would a valid air/naval system look like, and what would a workable quantitative supply system look like -- and what kind of a time frame are we talking about for the anticipated programming work? Then is the time to figure out how other changes would fit into those -- and perhaps how it could be implemented in the meantime.

I've always strived to make whatever requests as minimally invasive as possible. Some of the ideas I've seen mentioned would look a little contrived.

Navairint would work exactly like landairint. I think house rules may still have a place, as this idea of surrounding ships in order to eliminate them would not be realistic. Ralph mentioned something about surrounded units fighting their way against the weakest surrounding unit -perhaps that could be incorporated. Ralph already added the naval value, which is teats on a hog for most land units -what's one more value?

I'm not saying Ralph's job will be easy implementing this, but in the end the game will basically look and play the same. In the combat report for naval units, the first round will show the engagement determination, then advantage determination, and the rest will not change at all. The only sacrifice this makes is with regards to chronology. The Brit may not be able to decide to send the 51st inf to Alex, and then have it be done in one,perhaps even two weeks time. I plan on slowing down the naval movement to as much as a third of what would seem to be the capability. Call it 'refueling and resupply' perhaps even some training which while essential to ships, isn't represented.

But the idea of sub killing groups being able to race across the Atlantic to pounce on whatever sub gets spotted would not occur, not to mention the disadvantage of all that movement on spotting and combat. Move a desron 10 hexes(250km)and the likelihood of finding a sub should be reduced to almost nil.

Mobile supply points may act differently, but will look like other units. If you want to add qualitative supply? Now that's 'non-trivial' as every unit will than have to monitor fuel, food/med, and bullets. It would help naval units as much as any, but I don't see it as essential as the other changes.

I've always strived to make whatever requests as minimally invasive as possible. Some of the ideas I've seen mentioned would look a little contrived.

Navairint would work exactly like landairint. I think house rules may still have a place, as this idea of surrounding ships in order to eliminate them would not be realistic. Ralph mentioned something about surrounded units fighting their way against the weakest surrounding unit -perhaps that could be incorporated. Ralph already added the naval value, which is teats on a hog for most land units -what's one more value?

I'm not saying Ralph's job will be easy implementing this, but in the end the game will basically look and play the same. In the combat report for naval units, the first round will show the engagement determination, then advantage determination, and the rest will not change at all. The only sacrifice this makes is with regards to chronology. The Brit may not be able to decide to send the 51st inf to Alex, and then have it be done in one,perhaps even two weeks time. I plan on slowing down the naval movement to as much as a third of what would seem to be the capability. Call it 'refueling and resupply' perhaps even some training which while essential to ships, isn't represented.

But the idea of sub killing groups being able to race across the Atlantic to pounce on whatever sub gets spotted would not occur, not to mention the disadvantage of all that movement on spotting and combat. Move a desron 10 hexes(250km)and the likelihood of finding a sub should be reduced to almost nil.

Mobile supply points may act differently, but will look like other units. If you want to add qualitative supply? Now that's 'non-trivial' as every unit will than have to monitor fuel, food/med, and bullets. It would help naval units as much as any, but I don't see it as essential as the other changes.

There are lots of problems with the above. Would you actually like me to list them?

My God Ralph. How many years has it been you haven't developed a realistic supply model! These static supply points are so absolutely unrealistic and the kicker is that you actually meddled with the supply and totally overlooked these glaring inadequacies. I wonder. You contemplate re-designing the shape of the tires while overlooking the fact that they need air. PLEASE FIX THIS GAME.

I figured that on a thread titled 'Naval re-supply' that I didn't have to elaborate this. Any vitriol is due to my current status in a game. But that doesn't change the fact that without modeling sea-supply correctly -especially if you're modeling American or British conflicts; and that's the lion's share, you shoot this game in the foot.

You know what this is? This a list of the 10 most popular scenarios from the strategist. Notice any constants? All give you one; the majority ALL HAVE NAVAL UNITS AND WOULD BENEFIT GREATLY FROM REVISING THE SEA SUPPLY AND NAVAL OPS IN GENERAL. And not so long ago, the majority was even greater. Does anybody from the devteam pay attention to these? Two are of the others are of the same campaign. I'm so sick of the ignorance and disdain matrix and the devteam have displayed toward the glaring naval inadequacies of this game for OVER 7 YEARS that I just want to puke right now. Excuse me.

He is correct. Naval supply isn't modeled. It's because it isn't a naval game any more than it's an air game. Because it's a land wargame that's why the emphasis is on 'fixing' the land war.

If you want to make it a naval game just turn all the land tiles to sea tiles. Modify all the land units to act like sea units. Make every tile a rail tile maybe. I'm sure there are things that can be done to make it a purely naval game.

I wonder what you guys told your mother when she asked you to mow the lawn? Oh wait! That's her mowing it now. Mam -why isn't your son doing that? 'Oh, he's not designed to mow the lawn'. What a crock of bullpucky! You guys do realize what self-serving defeatists you all sound like with your lame excuses. If Norm Koger was willing to employ such scheißelogik, we'd have no TOAW at all. So thank your lucky stars for the better people than you who persevered.

The game has an inadequate air and naval system, even after allowing for the fact that the game is primarily concerned with land combat. These are so overly simplified that they have little capability to portray the War In the Pacific in World War II...

Guilty as charged. We had no intention of modelling the Pacific War in any detail. Please see page 95 of your players' guide, under the heading "Make It Fit". End of quote

Your passion for a 'working' naval system is admirable, but it simply eats up resources of the guys who're trying to fix the little glitches that would improve the game play (as intended) even better.

The same applies for the 'monster game' fanatics; it's called O P E R A T I O N A L art of war.

Found this, just c/p it:

The United States Army field manual FM 100-5, on the definition of the operational level of war:

"Operational - the operational level of war uses available military resources to attain strategic goals within a theatre of war. Most simply, it is the theory of larger unit operations. It also involves planning and conducting campaigns." US Army Field Manual FM 100-5 Operations

"Military strategy employs the armed forces of a nation to secure objectives of national policy by applying force or the threat of force." US Army Field Manual FM 100-5 Operations

In simple terms:

Strategic: involves production of new units as well as supply Operation: involves supply of forces but not production of new units Tactical: involves neither production nor supply (though there may be ammunition limits)

Let's go back to the bogus claim of me wanting a naval model like Pacific War, or a 'Strategic level simulation'. 5 threads and dozens of posts later and you're still employing the same defense. Strategic simulation is already possible with clever use of the scenario design. See my list for the most popular scenarios. A few small, subtle changes that are entirely innocuous to your precious Russian Front simulation would have an immense impact on the majority of the most popular scenarios. I cherish the moment when, with your encouragement, Ralph sits on his duff long enough for another game to blow this one out of the water both literally and figuratively. And that's probably what you should want as well. Because until then I will continue to point out the glaring inadequacies of this game

I wonder what you guys told your mother when she asked you to mow the lawn? Oh wait! That's her mowing it now. Mam -why isn't your son doing that? 'Oh, he's not designed to mow the lawn'. What a crock of bullpucky! You guys do realize what self-serving defeatists you all sound like with your lame excuses. If Norm Koger was willing to employ such scheißelogik, we'd have no TOAW at all. So thank your lucky stars for the better people than you who persevered.

Well actually children are designed specifically to do all sorts of odd jobs around the home. If a parent hasn't the imagination to come up with ways to get them to do the job well, then it's left to them.

I really don't see the naval game going any further than it already has. It is meant as a transitory support mechanism. Once the boys get ashore it is merely artillery. In TOAW it is a taxi, it is an artillery piece meant to support the lads on the beach and it is an airfield and that only rarely.

A completely separate supply model for naval forces would consume so much time and effort that it probably would slam the door on any further improvements to the game for two or three years. Especially given that the only one working on it isn't doing it full time. And that is why it will never happen. No matter how many times you kick the door or break a window or shatter a dinner plate, I don't see that amount of time and effort being directed towards a part of the game that is represented as I have stated above.

However, I also support your effort to ask for whatever you please in the game. If you want nude beaches modeled, so be it. But I would ask that they only be allowed in 3d with infinate zooming.

BTW, Ralph just might surprise you if you don't insult him too much. Oops, too late?

I'm making my case. To you it's insulting Ralph. And at the same time you try to devalue my opinions and underestimate Ralph's capability. If I had my choice, it'd surely be you that I insult. Let's call it your influence over Ralph that I want to insult. We'll see soon enough where it sits. I've semi-given up on Ralph. Though he has made attempts to re-assure me. Problem is, people like me...they buy the game and download the scenarios, as is evident by the strategist at any rate. They don't articulate their desires for the game like you and I do perhaps. A passion for this game and the time to express it is what I have. You can interpret that as ...insulting -whatever you want. If another game surpasses this in scope and capability, it likely won't be one of us developing it. But I do believe it will happen, whether Ralph develops this one or not.

I'm very happy for you Panama. But you know what? For the second time the same thing happened to me. I attacked a Norwegian 1-1 regiment with 2 German divisions from Oslo. They had little movement left, I figured 1 would stay behind but no, they both advanced. Then another 1-1 Norwegian unit steps into Oslo moving my air force. Fine. I'm sitting her now with 2 German divisions and the entire turn. But this is Oslo and I need it for supply. I ship in from Germany another 8 regiments. Now, my regiments are like 4-6, while my divisions alike 14-18 or something. I still have absolute air superiority and bombers everywhere. The attack fails. I don't know what you guys are looking for in a wargame, but this one does it for me. I'm through with Ralph and I'm through with this idiotic conversation. This game sucks and yes, I'm angry over a bad result, but if you can tolerate this kind of glitch after Ralph's what? 6 years working on this game? You're a better man than I. I'm outta here.